The Supreme Court Goes Online with Anti-Monopoly Law Principles

In a recent article on China Law Insight, colleagues from our Beijing office have written about the recent Supreme Court decision of Qihoo v Tencent. Susan Ning, Peng Heyue, Yang Yang, Qiu Weiqing, Sarah Eder, and Guo Shaoyi note that as the first private action in relation to abuse of dominance heard by the Supreme Court, the case is by no means the most straightforward, particularly given:

the complicated facts,

the multitude of data, and

the fact that the online business model is somewhat different from conventional industries.

As such, the case is certainly not a text-book example of abuse of dominance private actions, with simple facts and a straightforward application of the law. In their article, Susan, Kate and their team consider the facts underlying the dispute as well as the Supreme Court’s approach to fundamental principles of anti-monopoly law, in particular in the context of abuse of dominance, which offers guidance and rules for future anti-monopoly litigation, especially those concerning abuse of dominance.

About The Author

Peta Stevensonis a partner in the Sydney office of King & Wood Mallesons where she specialises in competition litigation with experience in a wide range of jurisdictions. Peta also advises clients on the application of the anti-competitive conduct, consumer protection and access provisions of the Competition & Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) and related state legislation. In 2001/02 she undertook her LLM at the University of Cambridge, during which time she developed a passionate if fleeting interest in rowing.